Notebookcheck

TP-Link Neffos C9 Smartphone Review

Mike Wobker, Eric Ferrari-Herrmann, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Stefanie Voigt (translated by Alex Alderson), 05/22/2019

A large, budget smartphone TP-Link has expanded its budget C series with the Neffos C9, a device with a 5.99-inch display and a MediaTek SoC. Do not expect miracle performance or camera capabilities for the C9 though, as it is geared towards those who want a large and no-frills smartphone. Read on to find out how the Neffos C9 performs in our tests and whether it can stand up to its contemporaries.

TP-Link Neffos C9

TP-Link released eight smartphones in 2018 alone under its Neffos brand. One of these was the Neffos C9, which has now found its way into our offices. Its biggest selling point is its 5.99-inch IPS display that operates at 1,440x720 with a pixel density of 269 DPI. Additionally, TP-Link charges just €150 (~$167) for the Neffos C9, which it has also equipped with an unusually large 3,840 mAh battery. We will compare the Neffos C9 against other large budget smartphones. Our comparison devices will include the Gigaset GS100, Motorola Moto G7 Play, Nokia 2.1 and the Wiko View 2 Go.

Read on to find out how this MediaTek MT6739 powered device performs against our comparison devices, especially considering that it only has 2 GB of RAM and 16 GB of flash storage. TP-Link promises that the Neffos C9 supports facial recognition and can take beautiful looking selfies, but we are sceptical about both considering that it is a budget device. Our tests will reveal how true TP-Link’s claims are.

TP-Link Neffos C9 (Neffos Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
5.99 inch 18:9, 1440 x 720 pixel 269 PPI, kapazitiv, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 10 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm jack, Card Reader: up to 128 GB microSD cards. FAT and FAT32 file systems supported, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, compass, proximity sensor
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G/GSM: Bands, 2, 3, 5, 84G. 3G UMTS/WCDMA: Bands 1, 5, 8. LTE/FDD: Bands 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.45 x 158.7 x 76.6 ( = 0.33 x 6.25 x 3.02 in)
Battery
3840 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix PDAF
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker, Keyboard: Virtual, USB charger, micro USB cable, NFUI 8.0, 24 Months Warranty, SAR values: Body – 0.864 W/kg, Head - 0.169 W/kg
Weight
170 g ( = 6 oz / 0.37 pounds), Power Supply: 60 g ( = 2.12 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
140 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

TP-Link markets the Neffos C9 as having a FullView display. We are not dealing with a device that has a high screen-to-body ratio here. The C9 has sizeable display bezels, which measure 10 mm (~0.4 in) on the top and bottom, and 2 mm (~0.08 in) on the sides. The device has no notch, but it does have the Neffos branding on the bottom bezel. TP-Link also adorns the back case with the same branding and the company logo, just in case you forget what device you are holding. The C9 comes in either light or dark grey. The latter is our review unit, which has black display bezels. By contrast, TP-Link uses white bezels for the light grey version.

The C9 measures 158.7 x 76.6 x 8.45 mm (~6.25 x 3 x 0.33 in) and weighs 170 g (~6 oz), which makes it larger than most of our comparison devices. Our review unit is surprisingly sturdy though, despite its metal effect plastic body and the unspecified glass protecting its display. TP-Link includes a case and a glass screen protector in the box, which should help improve the device’s durability.

Disappointingly, the battery in the C9 is not replaceable unlike predecessors such as the Neffos C5. Replacing the battery in the C9 requires disassembling the device, for which you will need specialist tools. You will also void your warranty if you do so.

Inexplicably, the rear-facing camera housing protrudes from the back case, which makes the C9 wobble about on flat surfaces. The raised housing, which has a silver lip around it, at least protects the camera glass from scratching. The included case hides the camera bump though, which stops the C9 from wobbling about. TP-Link has extended the silver finishing to the device’s fingerprint scanner too, giving the C9 a somewhat stylish look.

TP-Link Neffos C9
TP-Link Neffos C9
TP-Link Neffos C9
TP-Link Neffos C9

Size Comparison

158.7 mm / 6.25 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.45 mm / 0.3327 inch 170 g0.3748 lbs153.6 mm / 6.05 inch 77.6 mm / 3.06 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 174 g0.3836 lbs153.6 mm / 6.05 inch 73.1 mm / 2.88 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 160 g0.3527 lbs149.5 mm / 5.89 inch 71 mm / 2.8 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 174 g0.3836 lbs147.3 mm / 5.8 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 7.99 mm / 0.3146 inch 149 g0.3285 lbs

Connectivity

As mentioned earlier, TP-Link has equipped the C9 with a MediaTek MT6739 SoC, which integrates four ARM Cortex-A53 cores and a PowerVR GE8100 GPU. The former clocks up to 1.5 GHz across all cores, while the latter can reach a maximum of 570 MHz. There is also 16 GB of internal storage, of which about 11 GB is available upon first booting the device. The storage is rather slow and makes the UI feel sluggish, something which is not helped by the old SoC and only having 2 GB of RAM. The latter is common for budget devices though.

The C9 has a micro-USB port, which OEMs seem to be taking their time over replacing with USB Type-C for their budget smartphones. The device also has two SIM card slots along with one for microSD cards, meaning that you do not need to choose between dual-SIM functionality and microSD card expansion as other OEMs force people to do with the inclusion of hybrid SIM card slots. The device supports up to 128 GB microSD cards, but we could only format cards as external storage. Worse still, we could not store apps or data on any of our test microSD cards.

The C9 has a headphone jack, and a notification LED too, although it does not support NFC. Hence, you cannot use the device with services such as Google Pay, for example.

Software

At the time of testing TP-Link ships the C9 with NFUI 8.0, which it bases on Android 8.1 Oreo. Our review unit had February 2019 security patch updates installed by the end of April, for reference.

The default launcher in NFUI 8.0 has numerous options for customising how it operates. You can enable notification badges for individual app icons, change themes and use alternative icon packages. Oddly, the latter only works with TP-Link supplied icons and will not work with third-party icon packs. You must switch to an alternate launcher if you want to use those.

The UI also has a so-called eye protection mode, which reduces the blue light that the display emits during specific times of the day. There is an app cloner too, which allows you to have two installations of the same app. This is useful for apps such as WhatsApp, which only allows you to be signed into one account at a time by default. Cloning the app then means that you can be signed into WhatsApp with two accounts simultaneously.

The C9 also comes with plenty of bloatware pre-installed. Some apps such as Clean Master by Cheetah Mobile can be uninstalled, but others such as the TouchPal emoji keyboard cannot even be deactivated. The inability to remove or stop the latter from running is especially annoying since it regularly displays notifications and advertisements.

You can set up multiple accounts too should you wish to do so. We should also mention that TP-Link bases NFUI on Android Open Source Project (AOSP).

Default home screen
Default home screen
A look at some of the pre-installed apps
A look at some of the pre-installed apps
Default app drawer showing more pre-installed apps
Default app drawer showing more pre-installed apps
Even more pre-installed apps
Even more pre-installed apps
Quick Settings
Quick Settings
Quick Settings customisation
Quick Settings customisation
Storage information
Storage information
Device information
Device information

Communication & GPS

The C9 supports LTE Cat. 4 downloads and Cat. 5 uploads along with LTE bands 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 20. The device can also operate at up to IEEE 802.11 n Wi-Fi speeds, but it is a shame that TP-Link chose not to equip the device with a modem that supported the faster 802.11 ac standard, which you may have seen referred to as Wi-Fi 5 elsewhere. Our review unit maintained decent mobile network signal during our tests with it connected to the Vodafone network in Berlin.

The C9 averaged around 60 MBit/s in our iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests, which we conducted with our reference Linksys EA8500 router. This will be fast enough for most internet connections, although the Gigaset GS100 offers closer to 100 MBit/s, which some residential Wi-Fi networks can now reach. However, all devices in our comparison table are well below the class average here.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=392)
221 MBit/s ∼100% +251%
Gigaset GS100
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 8 GB eMMC Flash
97.9 MBit/s ∼44% +55%
TP-Link Neffos C9
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
63 (min: 51, max: 61) MBit/s ∼29%
Wiko View 2 Go
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
54.7 (min: 53, max: 57) MBit/s ∼25% -13%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.7 (min: 29, max: 54) MBit/s ∼22% -23%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Adreno 506, 632, 32 GB eMMC Flash
34.8 (min: 27, max: 44) MBit/s ∼16% -45%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=392)
212 MBit/s ∼100% +300%
Gigaset GS100
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 8 GB eMMC Flash
99.6 MBit/s ∼47% +88%
Wiko View 2 Go
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
53 (min: 36, max: 58) MBit/s ∼25% 0%
TP-Link Neffos C9
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
53 (min: 48, max: 57) MBit/s ∼25%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
52.7 (min: 27, max: 58) MBit/s ∼25% -1%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Adreno 506, 632, 32 GB eMMC Flash
11.6 (min: 2, max: 36) MBit/s ∼5% -78%
010203040506070Tooltip
TP-Link Neffos C9 Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø58.9 (51-61)
Motorola Moto G7 Play Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Qualcomm Adreno 506; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø34.8 (27-44)
Wiko View 2 Go Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø54.6 (53-57)
Nokia 2.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø48.2 (29-54)
TP-Link Neffos C9 Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø52.9 (48-57)
Motorola Moto G7 Play Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Qualcomm Adreno 506; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø11.9 (2-36)
Wiko View 2 Go Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø53.2 (36-58)
Nokia 2.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø51.7 (27-58)
GPS test: Outside
GPS test: Outside
GPS test: At a window
GPS test: At a window

Our review unit can locate us indoors, but only with an accuracy of up to five metres (~16 ft), and only when we are stood next to a window. The C9 takes a few seconds to find a satellite fix outdoors, but it is accurate to two metres (~6.6 ft) when it does find one.

However, we would recommend using a different device for turn-by-turn navigation as the C9 performed woefully in our sample bike ride. Our test device struggled to keep up with us when cycling in built-up areas and often took huge shortcuts to do so. The C9 plotted approximately a 9% shorter route than our trusty Garmin Edge 520, but we would not trust our review unit to give us accurate directions.

GPS test: TP-Link Neffos C9 – Overview
GPS test: TP-Link Neffos C9 – Overview
GPS test: TP-Link Neffos C9 – Bridge
GPS test: TP-Link Neffos C9 – Bridge
GPS test: TP-Link Neffos C9 - Loop
GPS test: TP-Link Neffos C9 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop

Telephone Functions & Call Quality

Dialler
Dialler

The C9 comes with a TP-Link phone app, which looks and functions like most alternatives. The app separates call history and contacts into two tabs, which are accessible at the top of the screen. There is a search functionality too, and a dedicated settings menu. You can also blacklist numbers among other useful features, although you must install a third-party app to use SIP services, which is disappointing.

Our test device has underwhelming call quality. We experienced no disturbing noises during our test calls, but the device could not always filter out background noise, for some reason. Moreover, wind noise masks our voice to the point where we sound unintelligible. We also occasionally had some calls that failed to connect despite having enough signal.

The included headphones filter out background noise better than the built-in microphone does, but voices sounded much duller than when making a call over the earpiece. We should also point out that the earpieces are made from hard plastic, which we found difficult to sit correctly in our ears. Ambient noise often passes through the gaps between our ears and the earbuds, which made it harder to listen to our call partner.

Using the loudspeaker is not a great experience either. The speaker loudly reproduced our call partner’s voice during our tests, but the microphone struggled to pick out our voice unless we were speaking from a quiet environment. Consequently, background and wind noise will obscure your voice if you are using the speakerphone.

The C9 technically supports voice over LTE (VoLTE). However, your carrier must provision the device on its network before the functionality will work.

Cameras

Taking a selfie with the Neffos C9
Taking a selfie with the Neffos C9

The C9 has two cameras, an 8 MP front-facing one and a 13 MP rear-facing one. The former takes passable selfies, but our test photos often look blurry. The edges of objects and fine structures are not always clearly separated either. Likewise, colours generally look too dark for our liking. The default camera app has a HDR mode and a beauty mode, the latter of which gives objects a slight blur to smooth out any uneven surfaces. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the C9 does not take beautiful selfies like TP-Link claimed it would.

The rear-facing camera does not do much better either, even in good ambient light. Objects in focus look slightly blurred, and most photos are overly washed out. The sensor has a propensity to underexpose scenes too. Colours look more vivid in macro shots, while fine lines and structures are separated well. The camera performed better in low-light conditions than we expected, but objects are still dominated by image noise and colours are strikingly inaccurate.

The default camera app lends its HDR and beauty modes also to the rear-facing camera. There is a professional mode too though, which contains options for granularly adjusting the exposure, focus, ISO, shutter speed, and white balance. You can also change the brightness, contrast, hue, and saturation should you wish to do so.

The C9 records acceptable looking videos, but it lacks any form of image stabilisation. Correspondingly, videos will often look blurry unless you have a steady hand or a gimbal. The default camera app only offers customisations for the resolution, which you can switch between 480p, 720p and 1080p.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

We also subjected our review unit to further camera tests under controlled lighting conditions. The C9 reproduces the colour yellow accurately, but all other colours are noticeably darker than the ColorChecker reference colours.

The rear-facing camera does an admirable job of capturing our test chart though. Fine details and structures are recognisable, while colours stand out well from the mostly grey chart. Contrast levels drop off in all corners of the image though, which is disappointing.

A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
Our test chart in detail

Accessories & Warranty

TP-Link includes several accessories with the C9. Our test device arrived with a charger and a corresponding micro USB cable, a silicone case as well as a pair of headphones. The manufacturer does not currently sell any C9 specific accessories on its website though.

The C9 comes with 24 months limited manufacturer’s warranty. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

As we mentioned earlier, TP-Link pre-installs TouchPal as the default keyboard app. The app worked well during our tests and offers numerous customisation options, but it is disappointing that TP-Link prevents the app from being disabled or uninstalled. You can download and use a third-party keyboard app should you prefer, but TouchPal may still display notifications and adverts.

The touch screen in our review unit worked well during our tests. The pre-applied screen protector has a highly resistive finish though, which makes multi-finger gesture such as drag-and-drop movements difficult to perform. Removing the screen protector or replacing it with a third-party glass one would alleviate this issue.

The C9 has a fingerprint scanner, although it is not a particularly good one. Our review unit takes a moment or two to recognise our fingerprints if it does at all. Likewise, the facial recognition software is insecure. The device uses the front-facing camera for authentication that only captures a 2D image of your face, which makes it easy to spoof with a print-out, for example.

Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode

Display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

As we mentioned at the start of this review, the C9 has a 5.99-inch IPS display that operates at 720p. The one in our test device reached an average maximum brightness of 442 cd/m² according to X-Rite i1Pro 2 and is 86% evenly lit. These values put the C9 in the midfield of our comparison devices.

Unfortunately, the C9 uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to adjust display brightness. This looks like flickering to human eyes and can cause health issues such as eye strain and headaches. The display in our test device flickers at 100 Hz when set to 20% brightness and below, which is low enough to cause adverse effects for those who are PWM sensitive.

451
cd/m²
426
cd/m²
407
cd/m²
463
cd/m²
447
cd/m²
416
cd/m²
472
cd/m²
448
cd/m²
449
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 472 cd/m² Average: 442.1 cd/m² Minimum: 9.7 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 447 cd/m²
Contrast: 745:1 (Black: 0.6 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.63 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 3.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
92.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.229
TP-Link Neffos C9
IPS, 1440x720, 5.99
Motorola Moto G7 Play
IPS, 1512x720, 5.7
Wiko View 2 Go
IPS, 1512x720, 5.93
Nokia 2.1
IPS, 1280x720, 5.5
Gigaset GS100
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
Screen
2%
13%
-8%
-34%
Brightness middle
447
479
7%
465
4%
338
-24%
442
-1%
Brightness
442
481
9%
462
5%
327
-26%
446
1%
Brightness Distribution
86
94
9%
84
-2%
82
-5%
86
0%
Black Level *
0.6
0.37
38%
0.32
47%
0.27
55%
0.35
42%
Contrast
745
1295
74%
1453
95%
1252
68%
1263
70%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.63
4.91
-35%
4.76
-31%
5.36
-48%
8.03
-121%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.49
9.47
-0%
7.71
19%
9.77
-3%
15.81
-67%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.5
6.4
-83%
4.6
-31%
6.2
-77%
10.4
-197%
Gamma
2.229 99%
2.108 104%
2.674 82%
2.345 94%
2.02 109%
CCT
6753 96%
7292 89%
6806 96%
8460 77%
10070 65%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 100 Hz ≤ 20 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 100 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 20 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 100 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9566 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The display also has a comparatively high black value, which we measure at 0.6 cd/m². The high black value results in an underwhelmingly low 745:1 contrast ratio and gives colours a grey haze. In short, colours will look more vibrant on our comparison devices than they do on the C9.

CalMAN analysis also shows that the display has a slight blue tint to it. We were able to reduce this by enabling the eye protection mode, which is freely adjustable. NFUI 8.0 does not include any colour modes or white balance options though.

CalMAN: Colour Accuracy
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy
CalMAN: Colour Space
CalMAN: Colour Space
CalMAN: Greyscale
CalMAN: Greyscale
CalMAN: Colour Saturation
CalMAN: Colour Saturation

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19 ms rise
↘ 15 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 88 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
46 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 25 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 72 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (40.4 ms).

The C9 is easy to use outdoors, but bright sunlight will wash out the display. The glass has a highly reflective finish too, which can impede being able to read the screen.

Using the TP-Link Neffos C9 outside
Using the TP-Link Neffos C9 outside
Using the TP-Link Neffos C9 outside
Using the TP-Link Neffos C9 outside

The C9 has stable viewing angles thanks to its IPS panel. We experienced no brightness, colour or image distortions even at acute viewing angles. Hence, the display should remain readable from any angle, unless reflections block your view.

Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles

Performance

The C9 has typical hardware for an entry-level smartphone. Its MediaTek MT6739 SoC and 2 GB of RAM are just about powerful enough for the system to run smoothly, but you will notice some slowdowns and lags if you have several apps open at once. Its PowerVR GE8100 GPU and 16 GB of eMMC flash storage are not much to write home about either. In short, the C9 is only suitable for running simple applications or tasks such as Facebook, WhatsApp and browsing the internet.

Our review unit generally finished in the midfield of our comparison devices in synthetic benchmarks. The C9 typically scores more than what we would have expected from a MediaTek MT6739 powered device though.

Geekbench 4.3
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1419 Points ∼31%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
3628 Points ∼80% +156%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2461 Points ∼54% +73%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1405 Points ∼31% -1%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (1125 - 1460, n=13)
1226 Points ∼27% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=294)
4519 Points ∼100% +218%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1769 Points ∼40%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
4179 Points ∼93% +136%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2542 Points ∼57% +44%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1602 Points ∼36% -9%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
1418 Points ∼32% -20%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (1418 - 1896, n=15)
1617 Points ∼36% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1174 - 11598, n=348)
4470 Points ∼100% +153%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
657 Points ∼50%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
1194 Points ∼90% +82%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
674 Points ∼51% +3%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
636 Points ∼48% -3%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
579 Points ∼44% -12%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (571 - 675, n=15)
590 Points ∼44% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (437 - 4824, n=349)
1326 Points ∼100% +102%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3227 Points ∼54%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
5930 Points ∼100% +84%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
3596 Points ∼61% +11%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
3146 Points ∼53% -3%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
2630 Points ∼44% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (2630 - 5377, n=16)
2752 Points ∼46% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3227 - 10450, n=341)
4920 Points ∼83% +52%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
7321 Points ∼100%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
4323 Points ∼59%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (0 - 4711, n=12)
3134 Points ∼43%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4290 - 14439, n=509)
5369 Points ∼73%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
634 Points ∼35%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1167 Points ∼64% +84%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
611 Points ∼34% -4%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (573 - 677, n=15)
490 Points ∼27% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4535, n=357)
1811 Points ∼100% +186%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
101 Points ∼7%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
305 Points ∼20% +202%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
75 Points ∼5% -26%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (75 - 189, n=15)
78 Points ∼5% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (76 - 8206, n=357)
1547 Points ∼100% +1432%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
124 Points ∼9%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
365 Points ∼25% +194%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
93 Points ∼6% -25%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (93 - 225, n=15)
95.5 Points ∼7% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (94 - 6312, n=360)
1445 Points ∼100% +1065%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
630 Points ∼35%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1184 Points ∼66% +88%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
885 Points ∼50% +40%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
611 Points ∼34% -3%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (530 - 698, n=15)
572 Points ∼32% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4493, n=372)
1786 Points ∼100% +183%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
164 Points ∼8%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
529 Points ∼25% +223%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
250 Points ∼12% +52%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
131 Points ∼6% -20%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (131 - 189, n=15)
148 Points ∼7% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (131 - 14951, n=372)
2136 Points ∼100% +1202%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
196 Points ∼11%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
603 Points ∼33% +208%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
297 Points ∼16% +52%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
159 Points ∼9% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (159 - 225, n=15)
176 Points ∼10% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (159 - 7980, n=373)
1818 Points ∼100% +828%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
606 Points ∼35%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1103 Points ∼63% +82%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
549 Points ∼32% -9%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (486 - 690, n=16)
526 Points ∼30% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4262, n=433)
1740 Points ∼100% +187%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
85 Points ∼7%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
Points ∼0% -100%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
257 Points ∼20% +202%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
69 Points ∼5% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (65 - 185, n=16)
79.5 Points ∼6% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (65 - 6362, n=435)
1278 Points ∼100% +1404%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
105 Points ∼9%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
310 Points ∼25% +195%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
86 Points ∼7% -18%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (80 - 221, n=16)
97.8 Points ∼8% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (80 - 5734, n=443)
1224 Points ∼100% +1066%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
594 Points ∼36%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1136 Points ∼69% +91%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
892 Points ∼54% +50%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
532 Points ∼32% -10%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (445 - 690, n=15)
561 Points ∼34% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (512 - 4240, n=466)
1647 Points ∼100% +177%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
125 Points ∼7%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
523 Points ∼30% +318%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
46 Points ∼3% -63%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
104 Points ∼6% -17%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (102 - 185, n=15)
128 Points ∼7% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 10008, n=466)
1746 Points ∼100% +1297%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
152 Points ∼10%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
594 Points ∼40% +291%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
58 Points ∼4% -62%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
127 Points ∼8% -16%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (120 - 211, n=15)
153 Points ∼10% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 7673, n=474)
1499 Points ∼100% +886%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
9801 Points ∼59%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
16576 Points ∼100% +69%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
8971 Points ∼54% -8%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
10427 Points ∼63% +6%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
9159 Points ∼55% -7%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (7103 - 10981, n=15)
9375 Points ∼57% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8253 - 45072, n=625)
13502 Points ∼81% +38%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3585 Points ∼18%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
14603 Points ∼75% +307%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9686 Points ∼50% +170%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
5487 Points ∼28% +53%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
2878 Points ∼15% -20%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (2878 - 4346, n=15)
3363 Points ∼17% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3585 - 162695, n=625)
19473 Points ∼100% +443%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
4173 Points ∼26%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
15000 Points ∼92% +259%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9517 Points ∼58% +128%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6133 Points ∼38% +47%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
3395 Points ∼21% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (3392 - 4339, n=15)
3870 Points ∼24% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4164 - 83518, n=626)
16287 Points ∼100% +290%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
6 fps ∼18%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
24 fps ∼71% +300%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
16 fps ∼47% +167%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
7.6 fps ∼22% +27%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
5 fps ∼15% -17%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (4.9 - 6.1, n=16)
5.61 fps ∼17% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6 - 251, n=651)
34 fps ∼100% +467%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
9.8 fps ∼26%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
37 fps ∼100% +278%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
25 fps ∼68% +155%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
14 fps ∼38% +43%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
8.2 fps ∼22% -16%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (8.2 - 15, n=16)
9.84 fps ∼27% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.8 - 120, n=654)
26.4 fps ∼71% +169%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.7 fps ∼15%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
10 fps ∼54% +270%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
7.1 fps ∼38% +163%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
2.7 fps ∼15% 0%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (2.2 - 2.8, n=14)
2.56 fps ∼14% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.7 - 132, n=570)
18.6 fps ∼100% +589%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
5.4 fps ∼27%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
20 fps ∼100% +270%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
13 fps ∼65% +141%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6.1 fps ∼31% +13%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
4.4 fps ∼22% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (4.4 - 10, n=16)
5.61 fps ∼28% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.4 - 115, n=575)
17.3 fps ∼87% +220%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.6 fps ∼10%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
6.9 fps ∼45% +331%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2.5 fps ∼16% +56%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
1.3 fps ∼8% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (1.3 - 1.7, n=16)
1.494 fps ∼10% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.6 - 88, n=432)
15.5 fps ∼100% +869%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3.5 fps ∼23%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
15 fps ∼100% +329%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9.7 fps ∼65% +177%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
2.8 fps ∼19% -20%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (2.6 - 6.7, n=16)
3.51 fps ∼23% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.4 - 110, n=435)
14.8 fps ∼99% +323%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.86 fps ∼10%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
4.3 fps ∼49% +400%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2.8 fps ∼32% +226%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (0.61 - 2, n=4)
1.028 fps ∼12% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.86 - 59, n=136)
8.85 fps ∼100% +929%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.35 fps ∼6%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
1.3 fps ∼21% +271%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
0.88 fps ∼14% +151%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (0.35 - 0.4, n=4)
0.24 fps ∼4% -31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.26 - 31, n=136)
6.1 fps ∼100% +1643%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.8 fps ∼14%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
6.8 fps ∼52% +278%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
4.7 fps ∼36% +161%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (1.4 - 2.5, n=5)
2 fps ∼15% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 59, n=137)
13.2 fps ∼100% +633%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.95 fps ∼6%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
3.8 fps ∼26% +300%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2.6 fps ∼18% +174%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (0.6 - 0.95, n=5)
0.804 fps ∼5% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.94 - 63, n=136)
14.7 fps ∼100% +1447%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.89 fps ∼8%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
3.9 fps ∼37% +338%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2.6 fps ∼25% +192%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (0.6 - 0.91, n=14)
0.826 fps ∼8% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.89 - 54, n=361)
10.5 fps ∼100% +1080%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.6 fps ∼17%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
7.9 fps ∼84% +394%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
5 fps ∼53% +213%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (1.1 - 2.6, n=15)
1.553 fps ∼17% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.6 - 58, n=365)
9.41 fps ∼100% +488%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
10 Points ∼1%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
1045 Points ∼100% +10350%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
673 Points ∼64% +6630%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
649 Points ∼62% +6390%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
10 Points ∼1% 0%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (7 - 624, n=15)
165 Points ∼16% +1550%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1731, n=583)
732 Points ∼70% +7220%
Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
186 Points ∼10%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
1069 Points ∼57% +475%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
741 Points ∼39% +298%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
428 Points ∼23% +130%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
149 Points ∼8% -20%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (18 - 190, n=15)
161 Points ∼9% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 15969, n=583)
1887 Points ∼100% +915%
Memory (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1010 Points ∼72%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
1068 Points ∼76% +6%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
884 Points ∼63% -12%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
502 Points ∼36% -50%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
431 Points ∼31% -57%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (420 - 1039, n=15)
768 Points ∼55% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 6283, n=583)
1408 Points ∼100% +39%
System (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1367 Points ∼35%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
3865 Points ∼100% +183%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1808 Points ∼47% +32%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1228 Points ∼32% -10%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
1115 Points ∼29% -18%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (1103 - 1526, n=15)
1294 Points ∼33% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 12202, n=583)
2792 Points ∼72% +104%
Overall (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos C9
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
223 Points ∼15%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 2048
1465 Points ∼100% +557%
Wiko View 2 Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
945 Points ∼65% +324%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
643 Points ∼44% +188%
Gigaset GS100
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 1024
162 Points ∼11% -27%
Average Mediatek MT6739
  (162 - 637, n=15)
291 Points ∼20% +30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 6097, n=587)
1385 Points ∼95% +521%

The C9 also finished middle of the road in our browser benchmark comparison tables. In everyday life, the browser opens with a very short delay and websites are set up quickly. However, media content takes a moment to load.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (17.6 - 23832, n=490)
86.8 Points ∼100% +393%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
42.626 Points ∼49% +142%
Wiko View 2 Go (Chrome 71)
17.759 Points ∼20% +1%
TP-Link Neffos C9 (Chrome 73)
17.605 Points ∼20%
Average Mediatek MT6739 (13.4 - 18.5, n=14)
16.7 Points ∼19% -5%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
15.853 Points ∼18% -10%
Gigaset GS100 (Chrome 68)
13.378 Points ∼15% -24%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G7 Play
8185 Points ∼100% +142%
Average of class Smartphone (3126 - 43280, n=645)
6101 Points ∼75% +80%
TP-Link Neffos C9 (Chrome 73)
3386 Points ∼41%
Wiko View 2 Go (Chrome 71)
3089 Points ∼38% -9%
Average Mediatek MT6739 (2093 - 3386, n=15)
2945 Points ∼36% -13%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
2503 Points ∼31% -26%
Gigaset GS100 (Chrome 68)
2093 Points ∼26% -38%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average Mediatek MT6739 (13599 - 18154, n=16)
16427 ms * ∼100% -21%
Gigaset GS100 (Chrome 68)
15962 ms * ∼97% -17%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
13821 ms * ∼84% -2%
TP-Link Neffos C9 (Chrome 73)
13599.1 ms * ∼83%
Wiko View 2 Go (Chrome 71)
13373 ms * ∼81% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=664)
10917 ms * ∼66% +20%
Motorola Moto G7 Play
4806 ms * ∼29% +65%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 161, n=117)
63.6 Points ∼100% +136%
TP-Link Neffos C9 (Chrome 73)
27 Points ∼42%
Average Mediatek MT6739 (23 - 27, n=2)
25 Points ∼39% -7%

* ... smaller is better

The C9 also finished in the midfield of our AndroBench comparison table. The device has considerably slower storage than that of the Moto G7 Play but consistently beats the Gigaset GS100.

We typically test the speed of microSD card readers with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card. However, our review unit could not read the card for some reason, which forced us to use a 32 GB Kingston card instead. Regardless, the reader in the C9 is woefully slow and achieved around 6x slower transfer speeds than our comparison devices did.

TP-Link Neffos C9Motorola Moto G7 PlayNokia 2.1Gigaset GS100Average 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
270%
154%
109%
62%
133%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
9.5 (Kingston 32GB)
64.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
575%
61.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
552%
61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
542%
38.5 (6.38 - 65.4, n=125)
305%
48.3 (9.5 - 87.1, n=391)
408%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
18.3 (Kingston 32GB)
84.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
363%
79.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
334%
79.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
334%
57.2 (8.1 - 87.7, n=125)
213%
66.3 (8.1 - 96.5, n=391)
262%
Random Write 4KB
12.7
73
475%
13.45
6%
6.2
-51%
7.72 (0.49 - 43.2, n=239)
-39%
19.2 (0.14 - 250, n=694)
51%
Random Read 4KB
41.7
74
77%
50.46
21%
17.6
-58%
20.9 (2.49 - 62.1, n=239)
-50%
43.8 (1.59 - 175, n=694)
5%
Sequential Write 256KB
50.8
111
119%
51.18
1%
24
-53%
41.7 (8.74 - 97.6, n=239)
-18%
90.2 (2.99 - 392, n=694)
78%
Sequential Read 256KB
266.1
289
9%
288.26
8%
97.2
-63%
162 (9.66 - 294, n=239)
-39%
254 (12.1 - 1468, n=694)
-5%

Games

The PowerVR GE8100 is powerful enough to play simple and older games, but that is about it. "Arena of Valor" runs smoothly, but complex titles such as "PUBG Mobile" are unplayable if you can even install them.

The touchscreen worked well throughout our gaming tests though. Unfortunately, the accelerometer takes a moment or two to react. Moreover, the pre-applied screen protector and its highly resistive finish quickly make performing swiping gestures a chore in games such as "Temple Run 2".

Temple Run 2
Temple Run 2
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor

Emissions

Temperature

Surface temperatures reach a maximum of 27 °C (~81 °F) at idle and 36.6 °C (~98 °F) under sustained load. Our review unit often feels warm to the touch, but it never gets too hot to hold.

Max. Load
 35.5 °C
96 F
32.8 °C
91 F
33.3 °C
92 F
 
 34.8 °C
95 F
32.7 °C
91 F
33.6 °C
92 F
 
 34.2 °C
94 F
32.8 °C
91 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 35.5 °C = 96 F
Average: 33.6 °C = 92 F
32.8 °C
91 F
33.9 °C
93 F
36.6 °C
98 F
32.7 °C
91 F
34 °C
93 F
35.9 °C
97 F
32.8 °C
91 F
34 °C
93 F
34.8 °C
95 F
Maximum: 36.6 °C = 98 F
Average: 34.2 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  37.8 °C = 100 F | Room Temperature 21.5 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.5 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.6 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.9 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap of the top of the device under load
Heatmap of the top of the device under load
Heatmap of the bottom of the device under load
Heatmap of the bottom of the device under load

Speakers

The C9 does not have a dedicated speaker. Instead, it uses its earpiece, which gets unexpectedly loud. The audio produced by the earpiece sounds surprisingly balanced too. In short, the C9 is suited for occasionally listening to media content, but we would recommend using external speakers or headphones as these will deliver a better listening experience.

The 3.5 mm jack in our review unit grips headphone jacks tightly and outputs audio cleanly. We had no problems with Bluetooth audio either.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.244.92542.140.53134.636.64037.335.85039.836.26332.733.98027.726.210027.826.712525.726.116023.328.32002331.825021.437.931521.443.340020.148.750020.555.363021.86680020.472.610002073.6125018.274.5160018.971.320001869.7250019.170.6315018.268.940001867.550001964.663001862.7800018.168.71000018.1701250018.269.61600018.154.5SPL6267.731.382N14.623.11.649.3median 19.1median 66Delta1.81227.63927.23730.42928.434.828.133.42527.217.721.91823.118.32415.134.71646.915.753.813.755.613.355.613.657.412.465.313.166.413.869.211.570.411.772.710.873.511.169.510.669.21167.311.863.51261.11166.31170.310.769.711.158.463.260.524.981.115.712.10.547.7median 12median 65.31.910.2hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseTP-Link Neffos C9Motorola Moto G7 Play
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
TP-Link Neffos C9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 70% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Motorola Moto G7 Play audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 87% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 35% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

Our tests certify that the C9 consumes at least 1.5 W at idle and a maximum of 5.2 W under load. Our test unit consumes more than our comparison devices overall, but slightly less than what we would have expected from a MediaTek MT6739 powered device.

TP-Link includes a 5-W charger in the box. The charger takes about three and a half hours to fully recharge our test device. It is only just about powerful enough to recharge the C9 under load too; we would have preferred TP-Link to have included a more powerful charger.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.5 / 2.2 / 2.9 Watt
Load midlight 4 / 5.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
TP-Link Neffos C9
3840 mAh
Motorola Moto G7 Play
3000 mAh
Wiko View 2 Go
4000 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Gigaset GS100
3000 mAh
Average Mediatek MT6739
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
8%
17%
32%
1%
-6%
15%
Idle Minimum *
1.5
1
33%
0.8
47%
0.7
53%
1.3
13%
1.522 (0.87 - 2.8, n=16)
-1%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=724)
41%
Idle Average *
2.2
1.7
23%
2
9%
1.2
45%
2.1
5%
2.17 (1.6 - 3.5, n=16)
1%
1.737 (0.6 - 6.2, n=723)
21%
Idle Maximum *
2.9
2.6
10%
2.3
21%
1.9
34%
2.9
-0%
2.86 (1.68 - 6.3, n=16)
1%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=724)
30%
Load Average *
4
4.1
-3%
3.6
10%
3.2
20%
4.4
-10%
4.73 (2.8 - 7, n=16)
-18%
4.06 (0.8 - 10.8, n=718)
-2%
Load Maximum *
5.2
6.5
-25%
5.4
-4%
4.8
8%
5.3
-2%
5.99 (3.5 - 11.9, n=16)
-15%
5.86 (1.2 - 14.2, n=718)
-13%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The C9 has a 3,840 mAh battery, which is 840 mAh larger than the ones in the Moto G7 Play and the GS100. By contrast, the Nokia 2.1 and Wiko View 2 Go both have 4,000 mAh batteries.

Our review unit lasted 9:28 hours in our practical Wi-Fi battery life test, which falls far short of all but the GS100 of our comparison devices. In short, the C9 has underwhelming battery life, but it should still get you through a full working day.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
9h 28min
TP-Link Neffos C9
3840 mAh
Motorola Moto G7 Play
3000 mAh
Wiko View 2 Go
4000 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Gigaset GS100
3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
568
690
21%
734
29%
809
42%
532
-6%

Pros

+ large display
+ dual SIM
+ microSD expansion
+ dedicated card slots
+ affordable

Cons

- sluggish performance
- underwhelming battery life

Verdict

The TP-Link Neffos C9 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of Cyberport.
The TP-Link Neffos C9 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of Cyberport.

The TP-Link Neffos C9 is a curious budget smartphone. Its large display and outdated hardware still make it good enough for everyday applications and tasks such as using social media and browsing the internet. However, our review unit regularly feels more sluggish than its contemporaries, and it does not help itself either with its comparatively short battery life.

The TP-Link Neffos C9 will appeal to those who are after a budget smartphone with a large display. You must put up with the languid performance and uninspiring battery life though.

The ability to have two SIM cards and a microSD card installed simultaneously is something that not all budget devices offer, but this is a minor plus point. In short, the Neffos C9 does not distinguish itself from other budget smartphones. It does not do a lot well and frustrates in many areas.

TP-Link Neffos C9 - 05/20/2019 v6
Mike Wobker, Eric Ferrari-Herrmann

Chassis
82%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
89%
Connectivity
38 / 60 → 63%
Weight
91%
Battery
92%
Display
85%
Games Performance
7 / 63 → 11%
Application Performance
34 / 70 → 48%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
57 / 91 → 63%
Camera
60%
Average
69%
79%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > TP-Link Neffos C9 Smartphone Review
Mike Wobker, Eric Ferrari-Herrmann, 2019-05-22 (Update: 2019-05-23)
Alex Alderson
Alex Alderson - News Editor
I got my first smartphone aged 11, my first PC aged 12 and I have been tinkering with electronics ever since. I like to keep abreast of the latest news and technology, which inevitably leads me to switch my laptop and phone every few months. When I'm not writing for Notebookcheck, you will find me seeking out new coffee shops, bars and trying to find some hidden gems in record stores.